This is what happens when second-wave, sex-negative feminists lobby and legislate unchallenged.

Instead of solving the real problem -- human trafficking, poverty, inherent societal views of women as objects and property, and its various iterations -- and acknowledging women as human beings and sexual actors who are free to make choices about their own bodies and occupations, declare men the enemy and seek to punish them for seeking it in whatever consensual and respectful way they're capable also as human beings and sexual actors. All while retaining maternalist, tacit assumptions that sex is shameful and an inherent objectification and degradation of women, and that women cannot be inherently sexual actors of their own choice let alone make a conscious, mediated choice to become a sex worker without some underlying issue.

Like it or not, prostitution isn't going away -- period. Men and women (lest we get carried away in misandric fervor, male sex workers alsoexist) get horny, and will seek sex from partners of their choice, without strings attached, by paying money for it. What leads to the violent and deplorable acts associated with prostitution, is the perceived immorality, illegality, and shame of that act on the part of both parties. It's not merely a legal problem, it's a social one. So, let's stop thinking and claiming sex is shameful, crack down on the actually violent, degrading, and deplorable acts associated with prostitution instead of prostitution itself, and let adults engage in consensual sex -- regardless of the conditions of that consent -- without shame.

I don't understand how people, who are apparently rational and actually care, can't seem to understand the connection between crime and prostitution is because you criminalized it and people are still willing to pay for it, not because sex work automatically attracts abused women. You can't force women into legal sex work, because they'd have rights and the ability to defend their employment rights in court; you can only force them into illegal sex work because you stripped their rights. Governments create the problem by trying to control something you will never successfully control: The ability of an ugly person to get their junk played with.

You wouldn't be ABLE to harm sex workers if you stopped treat sex work like a crime, just because there's some bodily fluids involved, and it has nothing to do with villainizing the guy who has more resources than social skills and available vagina. Someone with resources will always find a way to trade them for sex, food, and security. Making a specific type of transfer illegal whether or not someone was victimized is what GIVES you the ability to victimize.

So for those of you who DNRTFA: Since 1999 the swedish cops have been randomly dropping in on hookers in the act and demanding that their clients pay the cops as well as the hooker.It's not about justice, stopping crime or anything of the sort- it's about making sure the cops get their cut.

The driver of the car, who's brought a prostituted woman to the island to have sex, is arrested on the spot. He's given a choice: admit the offence and pay a fine, based on income, or go to court and risk publicity.

that bosnian sniper:This is what happens when second-wave, sex-negative feminists lobby and legislate unchallenged. Instead of solving the real problem -- human trafficking, poverty, inherent societal views of women as objects and property, and its various iterations

Oh? How is Sweden going to fix those problems all over the world? It can't. What it CAN do is place the burden of risk in prostitution on the john, as it rightly should be. The john pays up or gets sent to court, the woman gets support in getting out of prostitution (and for forced sex workers, this is a very big deal), and the neighborhoods get a handle on the street trade.

Even if Sweden fixes all those aforementioned issues in country (and it has made big steps to do so), women from abroad will still be brought over. that's ok. they're not trying to eradicate the sex trade, just provide a managing risk factor for those who would partake of it.

I do agree that there should be a legalized system for prostitution. however, without a system like this that legalized system would never be able to compete against the many czech/korean/thai sex workers being coerced into selling their bodies for pittances.

HAMMERTOE:PIP_the_TROLL: See all those places in white? Pretty much none of them has the saturation of guns the US has and the people that live in them have little to no fear of being shot by criminals, the police and definitely not by other citizens.

Your country has an obsession with guns and I can tell you that we people out here living in the white are absolutely flabbergasted by and terrified of it.

Let us not forget the ubiquitous American AK-47, found in every Third World nation on the planet. No, the real threat is once again... honest citizens.

weapon13:TFA "He's given a choice: admit the offence and pay a fine, based on income, or go to court and risk publicity."

What if your income is 0? Court it is then...

Most people with an income of zero are going to be unable to conduct an exchange of cash for sex in the first place. Much the same way that a drunk person who does not have a car is unlikely to be charged with DUI.

See all those places in white? Pretty much none of them has the saturation of guns the US has and the people that live in them have little to no fear of being shot by criminals, the police and definitely not by other citizens.

Your country has an obsession with guns and I can tell you that we people out here living in the white are absolutely flabbergasted by and terrified of it.

jtown:So let me get this straight. The women are allowed to sell something that it is illegal to buy. They get the money, direct the guy to a place they know is under surveillance, stall for a few minutes, let the cops shake the guy down, then the women walk away with the money.

Is that about right? What could possibly go wrong with this?

If their goal is to cut down on prostitution, not much. The john learns that the risk is his instead of the other way around like it's always been. Guys who get caught are less likely to reoffend. The client base dries up, so the woman might make some quick one-time cash from that guy, but she won't have an ongoing client.

So let me get this straight. The women are allowed to sell something that it is illegal to buy. They get the money, direct the guy to a place they know is under surveillance, stall for a few minutes, let the cops shake the guy down, then the women walk away with the money.

cboppert:These women need money or else they generally wouldn't be doing it (or they're being extorted by pimps, have had terrible childhoods, drugs), where as the men spending the money are generally well enough off to be trolling the streets for prostitutes on a given night.

That sentence goes for every person in every job, ever. Two people have resources they value less than the resource another is willing to exchange. Why does it matter that it's a sexual experience, and money? We all know the only REAL answer is because in general, sexual promiscuity leads to court hassles with inheritance rights, as well as the spread of disease an unwanted children. We basically say, because you might catch a disease, and we don't want to deal with the hassle of unintended pregnancy, we're going to interfere with your basic biological functions.

No wonder why Julian Assange didn't want to go back to Sweden. That country has turned into a feminazi man hating crunt. I guess on the good side it looks like the easy life of a prostitute will come to an end.